here - ccjs.umd.edu - University of Maryland

ccjs.umd.edu

here - ccjs.umd.edu - University of Maryland

Eric L. Sevigny, University of South CarolinaHarold A. Pollack, University of ChicagoPeter Reuter, University of Maryland


• “War on drugs” markedly increasedincarceration since 1980• Most offenders—whether incarcerated for drugor nondrug crimes—abused illegal drugs• Positive link between substance use—especially frequent, heavy use—and criminality• These developments spurred increased interestin ATI programs that merge drug treatmentwith justice system oversight


• Drug courts are now dominant national model oftherapeutic jurisprudence, combining:• Drug treatment• Judicial monitoring of program progress• Regular drug testing• Graduated sanctions for program noncompliance• 1989—Single drug court in Miami, FL• Today—More than 2,500 programs in every stateand nearly half of all U.S. counties• ONDCP endorses drug courts as “smart approachto criminal justice”• Obama’s FY2012 budget includes $101 million for drugcourts (and related problem-solving courts)


• According to the most recent meta-analysis(Mitchell et al . 2012), adult drug courts reducegeneral recidivism (ES = 12%), and these effectsare durable (up to 3 yrs postprogram)• Positive effect for reduced drug use, but lesscertainty in these results• Authors conclude that “continued funding,development, and operation of adult drugcourts is warranted.”


• Less systematic evidence that drug courts helpto reduce aggregate prison and jail populations• Different commentators suggest that drugcourts:• helped “bend the curve” of incarceration downward(Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011)• have a “low ceiling of possible impact oncorrectional populations” (Clear & Schrantz, 2011)• “may ultimately serve not as an alternative but as anadjunct to incarceration” (Drug Policy Alliance,2011)


• As currently structured, drug courts offer littleprospect of reducing aggregate U.S prison andjail populations• Offenders with more serious substance abuseproblems and criminal histories do not benefitfrom drug courts• If the drug court movement is to help reduceour nation’s incarceration level, it will have toexperiment with less restrictive conditions


• Legal consequences of program failure often cancelout any initial savings in custodial resources• “Drug courts nearly eliminate custodial time among thosewho graduate, but those benefits are counterbalanced bythe high sentences imposed on those who fail theprogram” Rossman et al. (2011)• Overriding sentencing laws preclude many druginvolvedoffenders from drug court participation• E.g., in 2007 in Florida, about 23% of presenting nonviolentoffenders with recognized drug treatment needs wereexcluded from drug courts because their sentencingguideline score required mandatory prison term


• Capacity constraints limit the ability of drug courtsto reach all drug-involved offenders• 52% of adult drug courts surveyed in 2004 could not accepteligible clients due to resource constraints (Zweig et al.,2011)• Restrictive eligibility criteria routinely exclude highrisk,prison-bound offenders• E.g., vast majority of programs exclude offenders with acurrent or prior violent offense (GAO, 1997; Zweig et al.,2011)


• Investigate why recently incarcerated offenders atrisk of drug abuse or dependence might haveended up behind bars rather than being divertedinto drug courts• Combined analysis of data from the 2002 Survey ofInmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the 2004 Survey ofInmates in State Correctional Facilities (SISCF)• Focus on recently incarcerated inmates (i.e., pastyearadmits) to reflect contemporaneoussentencing practices


• Results are based on the self-reports of criminaloffenders serving time in prison or jail• Because relatively more serious offenders arecaptured in “one-day” samples of inmates, ourestimates are likely to be undercounts of the totalnumber of offenders who could be diverted• Inmate survey data are now 7-9 years old• No fancy statistics


2002 JailInmates2004 PrisonInmatesTotalStock Population of InmatesSample n 6,982 14,499 21,481Population N 631,241 1,226,171 1,857,412Cohort of Convicted and Recently Incarcerated InmatesSample n 4,582 5,052 9,634Population N 415,354 397,188 812,542Cohort of Convicted and Recently Incarcerated InmatesAt-Risk of Drug Abuse or DependenceSample n 2,897 3,333 6,230Population N 258,192 259,549 517,741


CategoryDrug ProblemIntensityMarijuana-OnlyAbuseControlling OffenseMajor DrugTraffickingActive CriminalJustice StatusPrior ViolentConvictionNumber of PriorConvictionsPrior Offender-BasedTreatmentLack of TreatmentMotivationSevere MentalDisorderSevere MedicalConditionNoncitizenDescriptionDrug dependence as outlined in DSM-IV. Drug abuse if not dependent and (a) experiencedat least 1 DSM-IV risk factors for drug abuse in prior year, (b) committed precipitatingoffense for money to buy drugs, (c) used illegal drugs daily or near-daily in month prior toarrest, or (d) under the influence of illegal drugs at the time of offense.Used marijuana, but no other illegal drugs, in month before the arrest or at the time of theoffense.Primary conviction offense (i.e., violent, property, drug, other).Engaged in importing, growing/producing, or money laundering when arrested, or was aleader or middle man in a drug organization in the year prior to arrest.On escape or under community supervision (e.g., probation, parole, electronic monitoring)when arrested.Prior sentence to probation or incarceration for a violent offense.Number of prior sentences to probation or incarceration (maximum of three).Previously admitted to a substance abuse detoxification, inpatient, outpatient, ormaintenance program while incarcerated or on probation or parole.Parole or probation revoked for failing to report for substance abuse treatment.Admitted to mental hospital in year before arrest, or had diagnosis within past year ofdepression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, or anxiety disorder.Currently suffers from cancer, stroke or brain injury, diabetes, heart disease, kidneydisease, or liver disease.Not a legal U.S. resident.


MeasureProgram FailureFailed Drug Diversion ProgramFailed Probation Drug TreatmentSentencing LawsMandatory/Presumptive SentenceFirearm Sentence EnhancementHabitual Offender EnhancementDrug Law EnhancementDescriptionIn alcohol or drug diversion counselingwhen arrested.Probation revoked for technical violationwhile in mandated alcohol or drugtreatment program.Judge required by law or sentencingguidelines to give imposed sentence.Received sentence increase because of afirearms violation.Received sentence increase as habitualoffender, or because of a second or thirdstrike.Received sentence increase because of thetype of drug offense.


2002 Jail Cohort 2004 Prison Cohort EligibilityEligibility CriteriaN % N %Probability aTotal At-Risk Population 258,192 100 259,549 100Drug Problem IntensityDrug Dependence 153,311 59.4 159,966 61.6 1.00Drug Abuse 104,880 40.6 99,583 38.4 0.62Marijuana-Only Abuse 21,834 8.5 22,056 8.5 0.88Controlling OffenseViolent 44,376 17.2 53,718 20.7 0.37Property 72,256 28.0 67,836 26.1 0.94Drug 82,278 31.9 93,934 36.2 0.99Other 59,282 23.0 44,061 17.0 0.93Major Drug Trafficking 5,696 2.2 13,188 5.1 0.22Active Criminal Justice Status 192,289 74.5 141,259 54.4 0.50Prior Violent Conviction 80,067 31.0 70,728 27.3 0.12Number of Prior ConvictionsNone 46,268 17.9 71,533 27.6 1.00One 41,776 16.2 55,901 22.5 0.98Two 47,573 18.4 40,151 15.5 0.96Three or More 122,575 47.5 91,963 35.4 0.93Prior Offender-Based Treatment 90,921 35.2 98,365 37.9 0.51Lack of Treatment Motivation 7,331 2.8 5,702 2.2 0.61Severe Mental Disorder 38,370 14.9 38,970 15.0 0.30Severe Medical Condition 40,985 15.9 40,358 15.5 0.51Noncitizen 7,134 2.8 7,144 2.8 0.65aBased on NIJ-sponsored Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE)


• To account for differing assumptions regarding the independenceof eligibility criteria, we derive inmate-specific estimates using twoapproaches:• Joint Eligibility Probability• Assuming independence among criteria, we calculated the jointprobability of eligibility for each inmate using the marginal probabilitiesfrom MADCE• Minimum Eligibility Probability• Because the independence assumption is strong (e.g., the likely correlationbetween a drug court’s acceptance of offenders with a current and priorviolent behavior), we use minimum reported eligibility probability as asensitivity check• Provides a range in estimate of probability for any given inmate• E.g., range of 0.45-0.51 for inmate with dependence (1.00) on heroin (1.00),a controlling property offense (0.94), no trafficking involvement (1.00), noton active criminal justice status (1.00), no prior violent convictions (1.00),three or more prior convictions (0.93), prior offender-based treatment(0.51), motivated for treatment (1.00), no severe mental (1.00) or physical(1.00) disorders, and U.S. citizenship (1.00)


Combined CohortN %Total At-Risk Population 517,741 100Ineligible Due to Restrictive Eligility CriteriaJoint Probability 462,656 89.4Minimum Probability 427,745 82.6Revoked for Program Failure 37,046 7.2Failed Drug Diversion Program 8,244 1.6Failed Probation Drug Treatment 30,855 6.0Subject to Overriding Sentencing Laws 159,772 30.9Mandatory/Presumptive Sentence 94,447 18.2Firearm Sentence Enhancement 17,370 3.4Habitual Offender Enhancement 53,125 10.3Drug Law Enhancement 38,207 7.4Drug Court-Eligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing LawsJoint Probability 37,055 7.2Minimum Probability 58,575 11.3Drug Court-Ineligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing LawsJoint Probability 289,343 55.9Minimum Probability 267,822 51.7


Combined CohortN %Total At-Risk Population 517,741 100Ineligible Due to Restrictive Entry CriteriaJoint Probability 462,656 89.4Minimum Probability 427,745 82.6Revoked for Program Failure 37,046 7.2Failed Drug Diversion Program 8,244 1.6Failed Probation Drug Treatment 30,855 6.0Subject to Overriding Sentencing Laws 159,772 30.9Mandatory/Presumptive Sentence 94,447 18.2Firearm Sentence Enhancement 17,370 3.4Habitual Offender Enhancement 53,125 10.3Drug Law Enhancement 38,207 7.4Drug Court-Eligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing LawsJoint Probability 37,055 7.2Minimum Probability 58,575 11.3Drug Court-Ineligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing LawsJoint Probability 289,343 55.9Minimum Probability 267,822 51.7


Combined CohortN %Total At-Risk Population 517,741 100Ineligible Due to Restrictive Entry CriteriaJoint Probability 462,656 89.4Minimum Probability 427,745 82.6Revoked for Program Failure 37,046 7.2Failed Drug Diversion Program 8,244 1.6Failed Probation Drug Treatment 30,855 6.0Subject to Overriding Sentencing Laws 159,772 30.9Mandatory/Presumptive Sentence 94,447 18.2Firearm Sentence Enhancement 17,370 3.4Habitual Offender Enhancement 53,125 10.3Drug Law Enhancement 38,207 7.4Drug Court-Eligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing LawsJoint Probability 37,055 7.2Minimum Probability 58,575 11.3Drug Court-Ineligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing LawsJoint Probability 289,343 55.9Minimum Probability 267,822 51.7


Combined CohortN %Total At-Risk Population 517,741 100Ineligible Due to Restrictive Entry CriteriaJoint Probability 462,656 89.4Minimum Probability 427,745 82.6Revoked for Program Failure 37,046 7.2Failed Drug Diversion Program 8,244 1.6Failed Probation Drug Treatment 30,855 6.0Subject to Overriding Sentencing Laws 159,772 30.9Mandatory/Presumptive Sentence 94,447 18.2Firearm Sentence Enhancement 17,370 3.4Habitual Offender Enhancement 53,125 10.3Drug Law Enhancement 38,207 7.4Drug Court-Eligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing Laws (Capacity Constraints)Joint Probability 37,055 7.2Minimum Probability 58,575 11.3Drug Court-Ineligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing LawsJoint Probability 289,343 55.9Minimum Probability 267,822 51.7


Combined CohortN %Total At-Risk Population 517,741 100Ineligible Due to Restrictive Entry CriteriaJoint Probability 462,656 89.4Minimum Probability 427,745 82.6Revoked for Program Failure 37,046 7.2Failed Drug Diversion Program 8,244 1.6Failed Probation Drug Treatment 30,855 6.0Subject to Overriding Sentencing Laws 159,772 30.9Mandatory/Presumptive Sentence 94,447 18.2Firearm Sentence Enhancement 17,370 3.4Habitual Offender Enhancement 53,125 10.3Drug Law Enhancement 38,207 7.4Drug Court-Eligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing Laws (Capacity Constraints)Joint Probability 37,055 7.2Minimum Probability 58,575 11.3Drug Court-Ineligibles Not Restricted by Program Failure orSentencing LawsJoint Probability 289,343 55.9Minimum Probability 267,822 51.7


• Drug courts, as currently designed and operated, haveonly modest potential to reduce local jail and state prisonpopulations• Just 11-17% of recently incarcerated offenders at-risk ofdrug abuse or dependence had better than a 50/50chance of being eligible for drug court• Strict sentencing laws precluded upwards of three in tenat-risk offenders from drug court entry regardless oftheir eligibility• Drug court failures and limited drug court capacity (inthe absence of other restrictions) also impeded diversionfrom prison and jail, albeit to a much lesser extent


• More than half the recently incarcerated offenders atriskof drug abuse or dependence—upwards of onequarter of a million individuals—were ineligible• Can eligibility criteria be relaxed?• Can drug courts safely enroll drug-involved violentoffenders without undue public safety risks, e.g., agingdrug-involved offenders whose violent crimes are longpast?• Key to drug court expansion in this case is for Congress toamend the authorizing legislation of the Drug CourtDiscretionary Grant Program to allow funded programs toaccept offenders with a violent conviction.


• Expanding drug court capacity is attractive notbecause it would drastically cut prison and jailadmissions, but because its implementation would notrequire a great policy shift.• We estimated there were roughly 37,000 to 59,000 suchoffenders in prison and jail, which represents anadditional two-thirds to a doubling of adult drugcourt capacity (circa 2004).• A concerted influx of federal and state dollars couldviably begin to fill this treatment gap.• National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)estimates it would take $1.5 billion over six years to makedrug courts available to every nonviolent, drug-addictedoffender

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines